Credibility

October 08, 2010

I’m a huge fan of Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. His op-ed column today in the Star-Telegram is a good example of why I admire his work.

As usual, Leonard writes about a compelling issue with impressive thoughtfulness and clarity that anyone can understand. Today, he’s venting about why “citizen journalism” isn’t journalism at all. What his view boils down to is an argument that deserves a standing ovation:

“You cannot be a journalist -– citizen or otherwise -– if credibility matters less than ideology.”

I can’t think of a simpler, more effective way to speak that truth.

Amplified by the Web’s awesome power and other new media, ideology and propagandists infest our society and culture at a toxic level, focusing destructive energies on divisiveness instead of dialogue. For instance, have you ever heard talk-show propagandist Sean Hannity tear into someone who challenges one of his views? Hannity tears them apart. So goes ideology's attack. It takes to a new level the impact of the lies, rumors and shuck 'n' jive that have plagued humankind since Day One.

“Every Tom, Dick and Harriet with a blog is a ‘citizen journalist,’” Leonard writes. Well, obviously, not all bloggers view themselves as journalists, but many do, and as I’ve read them, I’ve noted that rhetoric, not verified facts, fill their work. Yes, it's important to share thoughts and reaction. Just don't call that journalism.

There's an entire universe of good blogs that reflect informed work and are worth reading. Check here and find some guidance here. And there’s an excellent local blog -– Fortworthology.

It’s too bad that more “citizen journalists” can’t be authentic journalists digging for and reporting facts -- from pursuing government documentation with Freedom of Information requests to exposing the scandal of potholes. This country of ours needs all the real journalists it can get.

If you’re not a journalist but would like to be, go for it.

I’d suggest, though, that first you read the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Might want to note that the preamble speaks of “enlightenment.” Facts and transparency (and good journalists), not mere opinions, provide the light for that state of being.

October 05, 2010

After a 43-year career in journalism (mainstream regional dailies in Dallas, Denver and elsewhere) and communications (stints with the Dallas Police Department and political public relations), I’ve been ruminating of late about PR-related experiences.

It’s my wife’s fault.

She’s an APR-certified, down-to-earth and very wise veteran public relations practitioner who, in my purely objective estimation (I kid you not, because professionalism rules both of us), could run any company’s communications department. I respect her mightily and the admirable recommendations she has for the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) that she’s sharing with that organization, but that’s another story. Don't get me started.

As she has prepared those recommendations, I’ve overheard her anguish over everything from whether her ideas carry validity to the wording and processes involved in presenting them.

On my end, I’ve reflected about how I’ve encountered PR initiatives and practitioners over the years. None are (used to be “is” but no longer) innocent. With feigned self-humility and lavish hospitality, they played me and other newsroom staffers, some of whom reveled in the gifts and strokes that flowed from the ego-fertilizing PR cornucopia -- amazing thank-you gifts, product “samples” and, well, “arrangements” with their attractive colleagues.

Of course, the great newsroom ethics push that emerged prominently in the ’80s, spreading through the ’90s and into the 21st century, soured such practices to some degree. Nowadays, even a non-profit organization’s T-shirt promotion aimed at certain news departments (Features, for instance) will be sacked up and sent to a night shelter or some organization that provides clothing for the poor. Meals with PR reps are Dutch affairs. For ethical purity, no reporter should take a free meal from a practitioner or even at a civic club’s luncheon they’re covering. And no knowledgeable PR practitioner should dangle such temptations. But it happens. But it shouldn’t. But righteous ethics say, “No Freebies of Any Kind. They Compromise Your Credibility, Dear Journalist. They keell you! Eat, Drink and Revel at Your Risk.”

So I think back to my beginnings in the news business, back to the late ’60s when I began my career at my hometown newspaper, the Texarkana (Ark.-Tex.) Gazette. So many memories, but I remember in particular the Christmas holidays when the funeral homes would send their ambulance drivers and sometimes their funeral directors to our little street-level newsroom at night with gifts for us, the hard-working, barely paid news staffers.

And with what did the funeral homes ply us? Wonderful little aluminum calendar thingies that could be bent in just such a way as to clamp around our watch bands. We could have a year's worth of months-at-a-glance right there on our watch bands along with the funeral home's phone number.

Sometimes some of us would wonder: If we’re getting stuff this cool, what’s the publisher getting? What’s the ad department getting? What are the guys in the backshop getting other than drunk? I can only imagine the PR-focused gifts at such levels. Whatever they were, I doubt they outdid the gifts that flowed to sports staff at The Dallas Morning News.

As at the Gazette, I have fond (and humbling) holiday memories from my stint at The News. I recall times in 1970 when I observed cheery PR guys -- not PR womens -- dashing through the newsroom and laden with holidayish bags and boxes as they made a B-line to the sports department on the west end of the newsroom.

From my city desk vantage point near the center of the newsroom, I couldn’t tell what the heck they had for the sports guys, but that didn’t matter. Word got back to us. The sports guys got jugs of Johnnie Walker, Rolex watches and other expensive things. I can’t remember what all piled up over there, according to sources.

But we on the night city desk could not cast stones. We were also plied with PR gifts. Maybe they weren’t as elaborate as the freebies the sports guys got, but they got us past many a deadline in a merry fashion.

Every Thanksgiving and Christmas season, instead of Rolex watches and expensive scotch, we got a platter of SMU’s famous brownies and a turkey, the remains of which were stolen one year by a copy editor after the final edition shoved. I saw him do it. I had ambled to the south end of the third-floor (newsroom) hall to smoke a cigarette and stare out of the huge plate-glass window there when I looked down and saw that editor running through the parking lot with that huge, plattered turkey carcass. I watched him stuff it into the trunk of his car.

I’m not sure the turkey or the brownies scored any PR points, but they were received by editors and reporters with charitable joy.

Then there was the time around 1972 when I was working on a story related to a Dallas utility’s expensive farm operations. When I met with the head PR guy, a VP, I made the mistake of asking first, “Hey, who’s your secretary?”

Gawd, she was a beautiful long-haired brunette, single, blessed with a natural come-get-me smile and a refreshing air of decency, which, I will say to my certain condemnation, is not generally found among hard-edged, crusty newsroom women (thank God).

“What? Who is she?” the tailored, handsome VP whispered, leaning toward me. “Would you like to meet her?”

I had not matured beyond my East Texas yokel level. “Yes!” I said to the VP. And so it came to pass, on an evening not long thereafter, I was sitting in the secretary’s humble apartment living room in Oak Cliff, listening to her stories about growing up in Oklahoma and the Assembly of God church where women were extremely unlikely to be defiled. I didn’t see her again. Didn’t do that story, either. I was depressed. Tweeeeet! Victory for the utility.

But I learned some good lessons, e.g., always keep hormones in check, never get distracted from the assignment (do not ever test city editors’ patience), embrace sacrifice, hard-ass professionalism and skepticism. If you ever suspect you're being PR'd, you probably are. If you never suspect you're being PR'd, God help you.

I could go on with more anecdotes, but let’s pretend there are word limits in cyberspace.

Your turn.

What do you think of such PR practices from days of yore? Are they still going on (c’mon …)? How have PR ethics changed? What lessons have been learned? What sort of credibility can PR hope to develop?

Can credibility even be an issue in a craft that’s relies on selective truth? Is there really such a thing as a credible PR practitioner?

Who’s running the PR profession anyway? How do they impact the profession’s credibility? Is that “APR” just a fake credential? Why aren’t there more practitioners with that designation after their name? How many heads of PR agencies claim APR?

Isn’t “APR” in fact a useless string of letters? What are the issues/anecdotes that come to your mind? C’mon. Share. Madmen’s a true contemporary story, right?

September 26, 2010

Wouldn’t you know Bud Kennedy would lead a Sunday fruit page? I’m sure his many enemies enjoyed that. And his many fans (including me and my wife), who probably chuckled when they saw parallels between the ads and Bud’s topic. But I digress. And I apologize for not being able to stitch together the fruit page, but at least you get the idea.

Satr I was scrubbing skillets early this morning (had to make the 9 a.m. mass) from Saturday night’s chalupa fest when my wife, who was leafing through the paper on the breakfast counter, said: “Have you seen this?”

She held up Sunday’s gawd-awful Page 2B. “When I first started reading this page,” she said, “I kept thinking, ‘How does this art go with these stories?’ ” News readers think in such shocking ways. Then it dawned on her: This page had been savaged by invasive advertising – the kind that says: To hell with news columns. We want you, reader, to focus on these oranges, limes and that apple wth a stem in your eye. I know the eye-movement studies. You can bet that apple stem stopped more than a few readers’ eye movement as did the limes and oranges. Suggested to me that space on a page is too valuable to waste on a smart-ass columnist, another murder story and yet another environment story related to “clean-coal” power plant issues. Right? Is any of that new and compelling in its effort to open windows on life? Yawner news? Wouldn’t think so, but I’d be interested to know how readership was affected by citrus fruit rolling into Bud’s space, an apple poking into the murder story and a huge orange muscling its way into the environment story.

We’ve become accustomed to seeing ads like this that cut into news’ space. Bully for you, bully ads.

Time was when you stayed on your side of the page, and news stayed on its side. Not anymore. News (the revenue-reduction department, as I’ve heard news content ridiculed by the bean-counters) gives it up quickly for advertising. And we know why advertising can kick news’ butt these days. The for-profit model rules. Papers are struggling to find revenue wherever and however they can find it. What’s left of the news staff doesn’t care anymore, I’d guess. Let ads invade news columns. Who cares? Staff’s more likely to have a job tomorrow. Credibility may take a kidney punch, but the place is open for business tomorrow. I understand all that.

So why am I so bothered by those invasive ads? Yes, I know that 50% of readers pick up a paper for its news content and 50% of readers pick up a paper for its ad content. That’s an old but persistent and true statistic. Question is, which side is going to take it in the bum when the revenue going gets tough? And, is that even a worthwhile question to raise?

Serious readers are going to read 2B’s thought-provoking Kennedy column and those two stories even if an apple stem’s poking them in the eye. But I’d guess that less-serious readers will get mesmerized by the fruit. “Damn, Dawnie baby. Look at how this fruit kinda jumps off the page at ya. Ain't that fun?”

God bless them for subscribing or buying a single copy instead of just going online for free, but they’ll pay less attention to the news content in a space dominated by nvasive advertising. What’s so bad about that?

Readers may not learn anything. They may not form ideas and opinions based on the news content. They will be less informed, less American. They have this Florida (California?)Orange from Mars at which to gaze and contemplate. I suppose oranges and other fruits aren’t a bad thing to think about and to give thanks for, assuming they aren’t genetically engineered fruit (or, what if they are? Anyone asking?), but perhaps it would be better for less-serious readers in this environment-challenged DFW with its toxic air to be mulling environment challenges instead of the glories of oranges, limes and apples. But if one’s fixated on fruit, to heck with juicy hard news.

Another issue for me is the compromised time readers will spend with a page. It isn’t much. It’s literally seconds. Probably less than half a minute or maybe 15 seconds with Page 2B. The more time many readers spend gawking at invasive advertising because it’s so compelling visually (and we are visual creatures and can’t help that), the less time they’ll spend with news content and whatever provocative information it could impart.

Enough already. I want to see news that respects ad columns and ads that respect news columns. That’s not happening on today’s 2B. And that’s not good. Revenue can pay diminishing returns. Invasive ads send a bad signal and a troubling perception -– the S-T’s not a serious news product, it’s just a cash cow for McClatchy.

I know the S-T news staff, and I know they’re professionals, from the executive editor on down, and they reflect the respectable motivations that journalists bring to the table. But those commendable qualities are lost on much of the public these days as the anti-media forces whack and chop at the media’s credibility every chance they get. And what’s so sad is that a chunk of the public buys into what they hear. Pages like today’s 2B are no help in preserving journalism’s credibility. It’s just all about making money, right? Unfortunately, yes. But if that’s what it takes to keep excellent journalists working, then bring on papayas and mangos. And where are the bananas and bell peppers?

But I urge people who believe that the media’s only interested in profits to take a look at Pulitzer Prize-winning efforts for the past 20 or 30 years, take a look at how less-than-prize-winning coverage keeps public officials more sensitive to the need to clean up their act, take a look at how coverage inspires community forums to discuss local concerns. Case in point: debates over the City of Fort Worth’s pension issues. Journalists keep local affairs clear and honest. As much as they can.

Of course, for newspapers, all of that happens primarily on the printed page and, yes, to some degree in cyberspace nowadays (but there you have these cursed floating ads that temporarily obscure one’s ability to read the news). My point is that anything that cripples the Fourth Estate’s ability to connect with readers needs to be addressed with mucho cajones and shown the door or laughed down Seventh Street. Ain’t gonna happen, though, I fear. The prevailing idea, it seems, is to embrace money first and First Amendment stuff maybe will follow.

The for-profit model takes out journalists' kneecaps very proficiently.

But it bothers the hell out of me when I think that oranges, limes and apples are all it takes to inflict a crippling blow on credible sources of reliable news and information. At least we haven’t seen that sort of invasiveness yet on the sports pages and the editorial/op-ed pages where J.R. Labbe, Bob Ray Sanders, Linda Campbell and Mike Norman have been spared the fruit bullying.

Thank God. Those are some of the brightest lights in this city as are Celeste Williams, Randy Galloway, Gil Lebreton and colleagues. But that’s sort of easy to understand. Thinking people, the types who read editorial/op-ed content at least, and sports fans whose passions bulldoze ads’ attempts to stop their brawls, are not low-hanging fruit who can be distracted easily. They’re not worth ad dollars unless those ads can match the passions in whose presence they presume to plop and command attention. Could happen, but those readers set the bar high – way too high for advertising of Madmen’s ilk. And I love that. Show me an ad that can rivet attnetion on an op-ed or sports page, and I'll show you an ad that's damn genius stuff.

Make those ad/pr people work their butts off -- just like news staff does. Fight like hell over the space on news pages. Knock heads. You good enough to get in that fight? Yes? No?

Bottom line: Make ads work harder in their space. Don’t invade news columns. They need to be strong enough not to coattail on news' muscle. After all, news organization’s credibility gives ads their value. Yes? If you don't agree, you're not much of ad/pr person. If you do agree, you need to tell the S-T to quit selling its space on the (credibility) cheap.

May 11, 2010

The race to get news online invites editing lapses that lead to publication of raw to near-raw copy that can carry embarrassing error perhaps not in facts but in the writing. I'd suspect that's what happened in the following sentence from an online report yesterday about the deadly tornadoes that hit the Oklahoma City area:

"It's unknown how many tornadoes actually touched down in Grant County this afternoon, but Wakita Police Chief Dean Bellin saw about five rotating clouds combine as baseball-size hail plummeted the area."

See the questionable word? I suspect the writer meant "pummeled" instead of "plummeted." Still, it's admirable to see hustle in getting news to the public, even if its credibility arrives slightly dented.

February 19, 2010

For a good while, we readers have seen typos cropping up in places once protected by a sacred caste -- proofreaders. They operated with authority and an equally sacred mandate: Catch typos and anything, from incorrect grammar to questionable facts, that would compromise commitment to fairness, accuracy and balance, a.k.a., credibility.

We miss proofreaders, particularly when finding typographical errors in books, of all places. But it isn’t surprising to find typos in books. Once upon a time, encountering a typo in a book would have shocked and dismayed a reader. Typos were shameful proof of lapses in quality and pride. They were horrifying, sort of like the sight of a colleague at work sporting bed hair and reeking of morning breath.

Such thoughts flared anew recently on noticing this envelope in the daily mail. Perhaps the sender, a non-profit organization, had noticed the typo and regretted the error but couldn’t afford to have the envelopes corrected and reprinted. Whatever the reason, the typo disrupted the organization’s sales message. I didn’t open the envelope.

I’ll watch for more instances of typos, and if you come across an example, send it to me. Together, we can form a typo patrol. And if you’re interested in typos, check out shamefultypos.com, a wonderful, if saddening, site.

December 10, 2009

A number of readers and colleagues keep asking what I think about a recent move at The Dallas Morning News that has 11 news department segments reporting to advertising managers instead of newsside managers. Most of us learned about this from Robert Wilonsky’s Dallas Observerblog that reported the decision and carried the Dec. 2 memo that was sent to staff from DMN Editor Bob Mong and senior vice president of sales Cyndy Carr. Plenty of reaction followed on the Web. Google and see.

Mong, to his credit, didn't shy away from questions. And Publisher Jim Moroney was pulled into the discussion as well.

My knee-jerk reaction was alarm. News sections reporting to advertising? That smacked of perverse whoring at its worst until I looked further into what’s going on. Except for the organizational chart, which gags me, I don’t see much that’s new. And I don't like the thought of ad people possibly celebrating the long-desired taking of part of "the revenue-reduction department" as, over the years, I've heard ad- and business-side people refer to news departments that aggressively and effectively serve the public interest, which is what they're supposed to be doing.

Collaboration between soft news departments and advertising departments has gone on for decades, and there are policies that support it. For instance, when was the last time you saw news of an airliner disaster on a page carrying an airline ad? When was the last time you saw an expose on red-lining in the real estate section?

Collaboration shows up often in the development of special sections. But at metro dailies like The News and elsewhere, editors generally have developed news content according to news value and not because some business had bought a huge chunk of advertising in a section. In a situation like that, the ad buy tended to be based on the fact that a story was planned on a trend, a product category or the advertiser or whatever, and the story was planned because editors knew it had news value. The story had news value because of readers’ real or potential interest in the topic and need to know. Professionalism in the reporting and presentation of the story ensured a credible piece. A newsy section filled with content like that ensured a product with high news value, which in turn created high advertising value -- a strong vehicle in which to advertise. Sounds to me like that’s what The News is going after. They know as most of us do that credible news value is the single most vital ingredient in creating fertile territory for advertising in any for-profit news product. Advertising revenue floats the boat but doesn't power it. That's the news department's job.

The only criticism I have of The News' step is the new organization. I don’t like editors reporting to advertising. That creates the perception of advertising running newsside, and that’s a perception that can poison credibility, which The News understands and is an issue the Mong and Carr address in their memo.

Advertising exudes a potent presence. If handled in a tasteless manner, it can project a destructive presence, especially in the minds of that half of readership that subscribe or buy a paper principally for its news content. What would parishioners think if, say, they walked in to mass and hanging up there above the altar was a big Drink Pepsi sign instead of a crucifix? And maybe they’d noticed the holy water font sporting a decal for Ozark water. Obviously, Pepsi and Ozark would never pull such a perverse stunt, because they respect lines that separate sacred and secular. In a for-profit news product (and don’t get me started on that), which to me is still a sacred thing, advertising obviously has its place but it should respect where it is and act accordingly. When advertising muscles in on news space, that’s crossing and disrespecting a line and asking for trouble. Perhaps you’ve noticed as I have those god-awful pages in the Star-Telegram where ads chop into news space like bullies bellying up to a reader’s face. Disgusting and as repulsive as an egotistical airhead at a party who impolitely disrupts personal conversation. But it’s salary-paying revenue, right?

I could go on and on about all this as many of us could without even scratching the surface. There are many other aspects of The News' step that are worth exploring. For instance, the ad managers to whom newsside will report have been retitled as "general managers." Did they get a raise? Any raises given to newsside staff who'll be reporting to them? Whatever. Enough said.

To reiterate my concern about The News’ step, I don’t like editors reporting to ad managers. Why not the other way around to avoid threats to credibility? Mong says he and editors reserve the right to step in and to refuse to cross lines that would jeopardize credibility. That's good, but that’s weird. They’re going to say “No” to their bosses in the ad department? What does that say about perceptions of those ad-side people's news judgment and ethics? Why have them as bosses in the first place? But maybe those ad bosses will learn something about journalism. Maybe content that results will be infused with journalistic professionalism and high-quality news value. We can hope. At least hard-news departments like the city desk, state desk, etc., don’t appear to be part of the plan. As Mong and Carr’s memo says: “To better align with our clients' needs, we will be organized around eleven business and content segments with similar marketing and consumer profiles including: sports, health/education, entertainment, travel/luxury, automotive, real estate, communications, preprints/grocery, recruitment, retail/finance, and SMB/Interactive.”

There are some hard-news categories in that lineup, but they all have consumer dimensions as well that lend themselves to softer but still newsworthy coverage. We’ll see whether writers in soft departments generate the coverage or whether the hard-news gladiators get called up for duty.